CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ7622993
Regular
Mar 23, 2012

William Wong vs. The Home Depot, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Helmsman Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied William Wong's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report which found Wong's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies regarding his legal and substance abuse history. While the WCJ acknowledged a potential psychotic break, it was deemed not industrially caused, thus rebutting the presumption of compensability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ7622993THE HOME DEPOTLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICESLabor Code Section 5402presumption of compensability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1980

In re the Claim of Cruz

The claimant, an assistant engineer at a nursing home, was discharged for leaving the premises for a meal break in violation of employer policy, despite a prior warning. The employer required the claimant to remain on-site during breaks as he worked alone on a night shift and needed to be available for emergencies. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially found the employer's rule invalid based on its interpretation of Labor Law § 162 (subd 4), determining the claimant's actions did not constitute disqualifying misconduct. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that Labor Law § 162 (subd 4) does not dictate the location of a meal break and that the employer's policy, especially with compensated breaks, was reasonable. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceMeal Break PolicyEmployer RulesStatutory InterpretationLabor LawAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal BoardNursing Home EmployeeTermination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Kaleida Health

Six plaintiffs, including registered nurses and respiratory therapists, initiated a putative collective/class action against Kaleida Health and its associated entities. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages, overtime, and improper meal break deductions. The court addressed four motions: plaintiffs' class certification requests for meal break and rounding policies, and both parties' summary judgment motions. The judge denied all of the plaintiffs' motions and granted the defendants' motions, striking the rounding class certification, denying the meal break class certification, and largely granting summary judgment to Kaleida regarding certain NYLL claims for three plaintiffs. The court found no evidence of a uniform system-wide policy for wage violations and upheld the employer's right to delegate reporting procedures for missed meal breaks.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyRounding PolicySummary JudgmentClass CertificationHourly Employees
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fengler v. Crouse Health Foundation, Inc.

The case involves two named plaintiffs, Michelle Fengler and Marianne Meyers, along with over a hundred other employees, who allege that Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly compensate hourly employees due to an automatic meal break deduction policy. Plaintiffs contend that chronic understaffing and patient care demands required employees to work during meal breaks without pay. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, granted preliminary certification for a collective action, but limited the class to current and former hourly employees of Crouse Hospital with direct patient care responsibilities who were subject to automatic meal break deductions and worked through unpaid breaks in the last three years. The court also partially granted discovery requests for employee names and addresses, while denying requests for more private information, and ordered the parties to agree on a notice for potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionMeal Break DeductionUnpaid WagesHourly EmployeesPatient Care ResponsibilitiesPreliminary CertificationWage and Hour DisputeUnderstaffingJudicial Discretion
References
24
Case No. ADJ9942537
Regular
Dec 09, 2018

ANGELO RIOS vs. RUSHER AIR CONDITIONING, INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained during his unpaid lunch break. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior decision that denied the claim. The Board found that the applicant's injury did not fall under the "going and coming" rule due to evidence that he was performing work-related tasks during his break, including taking work calls and researching for a bid. Furthermore, the Board determined the injury likely occurred after the unpaid lunch period concluded, extending into a paid break.

Going and coming ruledual purpose exceptioncourse of employmentscope of employmentAOE/COEpersonal comfort doctrinepaid breaksunpaid lunch breakassaultthird-party assault
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01467
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Shyti v. ABM

Prena Shyti, an office cleaning person, sustained injuries after slipping on a sidewalk across the street from her workplace during a paid 15-minute break. She was on her way to a pizza parlor after smoking a cigarette, which she was instructed to do off-premises. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately reversed, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'coffee break rule,' which holds that accidents during short breaks, even off-premises, can be compensable if the activity is reasonable and sufficiently work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentCoffee Break RuleOff-Premises InjuryPaid BreakEmployee ConductAppellate DivisionThird Department
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1996

In re the Claim of Barney S.

The claimant was found to be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits received during a three-month summer break from their employment as a university food service worker. This ineligibility stemmed from their union contract, which stipulated a payment of $90 per week after the exhaustion of their vacation pay during this period. According to Labor Law § 590 (11), a nonprofessional employee of an educational institution is not eligible for benefits during a break if they receive reasonable assurance of reemployment for the subsequent academic term. The ruling determined that the claimant had been given reasonable assurance of reemployment, making the benefits received during the summer break recoverable. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment insuranceeducational institutionsummer breakreemployment assurancebenefits ineligibilityunion contractLabor Lawappealsubstantial evidencerecoverable benefits
References
2
Case No. 132 AD3d 127
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2015

Burlington Insurance v. NYC Transit Authority

Burlington Insurance Company sought a declaration that NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) were not additional insureds under a policy issued to Breaking Solutions, a subcontractor. The underlying claim arose from an injury to a NYCTA employee caused by a Breaking Solutions excavator during a subway project. Burlington argued that coverage required Breaking Solutions' negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that additional insured endorsements triggered by "acts or omissions" do not necessitate a finding of the named insured's negligence. Consequently, NYCTA and MTA were entitled to coverage, and the anti-subrogation rule barred Burlington's indemnification claim against NYCTA.

Additional Insured EndorsementInsurance Coverage DisputeContractual IndemnificationAnti-Subrogation RuleSubcontractor LiabilityActs or Omissions ClauseNegligence RequirementAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail v. Plumbers, Pipe Fitters & Apprentices Local Number 112 Pension Fund

Plaintiff T. Edward Vail commenced an action under ERISA seeking additional pension benefits, contending he did not incur a break in service and was entitled to recalculation of benefits. The Defendant, a pension plan, had informed Plaintiff in 1985 of a break in service from 1975-1980, which reduced his benefits. Plaintiff argued that a subsequent change in the grace period definition in 1987 should have retroactively negated the break. However, the Court found Plaintiff's claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations (N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 213), as the clear repudiation by the Defendant occurred in 1985 and no subsequent action constituted a renunciation of that determination. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, Plaintiff's cross-motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed as untimely.

ERISA LitigationPension Benefits DisputeBreak in Service RuleStatute of Limitations BarSummary Judgment MotionRepudiation DoctrinePension Plan AmendmentsFiduciary ResponsibilityBenefit AccrualUnion Collective Bargaining
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 136 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational